Skip to main content
1:00 pm
comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion to send the items forward. we can do that without objection. item three. >>the clerk: item three, resolution authorizing department of public works to accept and bs pend a federal grant in amount of $1,381,000 from metropolitan transportation commission for the south of market alleyways improvement project. >> thank you very much. supervisor kim, do you have opening comments on this item? >> no, just want to thank our successor agency and department of public works for working so closely with our office on ensuring as much as the commitments we have made in the neighborhood around infrastructure improvements, whether it is the substation or ally way improvements were able to move forward smoothly. i know it was a lot of work to ensure this happened. glad we were able to do this. the first phase of the improvement plan i thought
1:01 pm
went really well. improving pedestrian safety and corridor flow in a neighborhood where we have a lot of large blocks and pedestrian collisions is essential. i'm looking forward to the second phase of this development. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. amanda hirsch from public works. the resolution would authorize dpw to accept and expend 1,381,000 federal congestion management area block grant originally awarded in 2010 to the san francisco redevelopment agency for south of market alleyways improvement project. initially the redevelopment agency planed to contract the work to dpw for design and construction management. however with the dissolution with the redevelopment agency the successor agency has requested to transfer responsibility for the project and grant funds and match funds to dpw. this is recorded in a june 2012 memorandum of understanding between dpw
1:02 pm
and successor agency. in august of 2010 the redevelopment agency commission passed a resolution assuring the agency would provide 959,450,000 in non-federal matching funds, creating an enforceable obligation for this project. this accept and expend is the last step required to finalize the transfer of project funds to dpw. here today are the project manager from dpw and a representative of the successor agency. we would be happy by to answer any questions from the board. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, shown on page three of our report, table one, which is on page four, summarizes the $2,340,400 project grant -- total project cost. 2,340,400, then the source of funds are shown in the following table on page
1:03 pm
four, table two, coming from the former san francisco redevelopment agency. we list the tax increment bonds, the specific sources of funds. we recommend you approve the resolution. >> thank you. are there members of the publics who wish to speak on item three? seeing none th, is closed. colleagues, can we send this forward with recommendation. so moved. thank you. item four, please. >> resolution authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission general manager enter into a long-term interconnection with pacific gas & electric for solar power project on alvarado elementary pursuant to san francisco charter 918b. >> this is by supervisor wiener who wanted to speak but in his place is andre
1:04 pm
powers to speak on his behalf. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this allows the san francisco puc enter agreement with pg&e, first alert project that's already been installed at alvarado elementary, a resolution authorizing that installation came before the board earlier in the year. essentially this would allow for these solar panels to be turned on. john doyle from the puc is here if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. about three years ago the pta at alvarado school was extremely interested in a solar project in terms of educational value for the students. at that time they did approach the puc about doing a project. as a consequence of that, and after a lot of discussion, development and work, we did actually proceed with a project at the alvarado school. it is a 50 kilo watt solar
1:05 pm
system. it is actually being completed. we did that in conjunction with dpw. the project is completed. it is not connected to the grid. the purpose of this resolution is enter into an agreement, which is a standard interconnection agreement with pg&e. that is pretty much a pro forma standard for solar projects. a standard agreement approve bid the california public utilities commission. actually non-negotiable. so we are asking for your support to be able to have the general manager implement this with pg&e. >> thank you. a quick question for this project. not so much the item before us, but how was it paid for? >> that is paid for out of the power enterprise, department of the p.u.c. we have a capital funding
1:06 pm
program for renewable and energy efficiency projects. there is an amount set aside for those. it is actually part of the hetch hetchy revenue, it is paid for out of those funds. >> so this is p.u.c. funding, basically the ratepayer dollars going to pay for the solar project. >> yes, sir. >> is it available for all schools or was this a one-off exception? >> no. we actually entered into a master license agreement with the school district. so there is a program that is available for other schools. this is a ten-year license agreement with the school district, so there is a ten-year window where we can scout out other schools that might be available to do this. unfortunately our funding is limited. we used to have funding around the $6 million a year for renewable projects. it is now declining to
1:07 pm
about $1 to $2 million a year range. there will be a limited number of schools we can support. however there is another piece of good news. that is that this transbay cable funds that can also be available. so we will be getting $2 million in revenue, the city will, from the transbay cable project. that can be allocated between energy efficiency and renewable projects. some of those will also be available to do additional schools. we have earmarked a couple schools under that funding, which is thurgood marshal, cesar chavez and downtown high school. between the money we do have from the hetch hetchy and money available from transbay funding we can do more schools. >> in terms of allocations, this is a partnership, we
1:08 pm
have efficiency or renewal projects with city facilities as well. how do you sort of all -- allocate that scarce money to get us to be less reliable on energy. >> you mean allocated between schools and other city departments? is that the question? >> right. >> that is a matter of prioritizing projects. so on the renewable side we have potential portfolio projects we are looking at on city properties and the schools. we go through a process there where we look at roofs of buildings of a structurally sound electrical system in the building. support the system and so forth. we come up with a list of buildings. then within that framework, then depending on project and depending on funding we
1:09 pm
select the project to fund. >> is it tied into what people pay i want the system? the school pays for energy, i'm guessing. the city pays for energy. it is based on what you put into it or not? >> not necessarily. we have done projects for enterprise departments, like the airport moscone center that pay rates equivalent to pg&e. we have done projects for general fund that pay 3.5 cents or subsidized rate and city hall, which pays nothing for electricity. it isn't necessarily a function of what they pay into the -- what the rate is. the way we work it is that we meet as a solar power. and the department pays for the solar power at the normal rates.
1:10 pm
alvarado school, for example, alvarado will pay for the solar power but at the subsidized general fund rate. basically the department is indif rent because they are paying the same amount of money before and after the solar system was installed. >> thank you. >> thank you. do we have a budget analyst report on this item? we do not, i believe. are there any members of the public? seeing none, this is closed. >> i want to give one comment that i have seen this at a couple schools. sometimes the solar panels are placed on a location in the school yard that is incredibly inconvenient for the students. while i don't understand the mechanics and i have been told that is the only
1:11 pm
location but sometimes in the middle of the play field. this is the case at marshal. i hope in the placement there's a lot of thoughtfulness is given to the site. do you have a response to that? >> yes. the panels we are placing are on the roof. >> okay. >> there's been another program that pg&e's had where they provided solar panels to schools. i agree with you, typically those are placed in the school yard somewhere. it is a set of solar panels on a pole, right in the middle of where the kids play and totally inconvenient. i agree with you. we are not doing that. >> sorry, great. thank you. supervisor, we have heard and closed public comment. do we have a motion? okay. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation. we can do that without objection. thank you. item five. >>the clerk: item number five, resolution authorizing director of public works to execute an
1:12 pm
amendment to construction management service agreement with cooper pugeda management for the laguna honda hospital replace placement program, from 16,196,764 to 16,805,733. >> thank you. who is here to speak on this. representative from dpw. okay. i believe they want us to continue this to next week, since the representative is sick this week. why don't we hold off on the budget analyst until next week. why don't we open this for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item five? seeing none, closed. >> general question on this one. there was increases to this contract. seemed like -- well, from the budget analyst report seems like increases should have come to the board of
1:13 pm
supervisors for approval. what are the consequences of this department going into contract amendment without getting approval. i mean, is there any consequence or penalty? how do we monitor that to prevent it from happening again. >> madam chair, members of the committee, supervisor avalos, i don't think there are any consequences. certainly as budget analyst i believe that any increase that requires board of supervisors approval as the city attorney has advised us should go before the board. on this particular item i don't think there is anything that significant. it is a matter that the department has to be careful. i don't think there is a very agregious error in what has taken place. as you can see, we are
1:14 pm
recommending approval of this legislation with the correct amounts to be modified. but you're correct in your observation. this should not happen. >> i haven't seen too many -- to often of a model where there are certain stages expected in terms of a contract renewed over and over, like this one has. this is pretty -- >> are you referring to the -- let me -- i know we are talking about next week as well but those are burning questions. >> supervisor avalos, are you referring to the fact that when the contract was first approved on a competitive basis the initial amount was about 600,000. now we are up significantly to $60 million. in this case we agree with the method the department used. it was always stated to the
1:15 pm
board of supervisors that after the competitive process they would adopt a plan, a work plan each year for the contractor to do the work. so that is why there's been i think 16 modifications to this particular item. i think that the process the department used is reasonable in this case. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. should we open public comment and kles public comment. colleagues, do we have a motion to continue this a week? we have a motion. we will do that without objection. thank you. item seven, please. >> resolution approving contract number cpt631. planned rehabilitation between city and county of san francisco and complete work to rebuild major systems and components on approximately ab standard diesel buses in amount not
1:16 pm
to exceed 19,105,885 not to exceed six years, limited to 12 million. >> thank you. we have a representative. >> briefly on this, this is from supervisor wiener's office . this would allow you to engage work to rehabilitate 80 diesel buses. this contract is reflective of mta's increased focus on maintenance and years of deferred maintenance of their bus fleet. this will help reduce bus breakdowns and increase reliability. supervisor respectfully requests your support. the mta is here. >> thank you very much. the mta. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm nelson how from the mta. this project is to
1:17 pm
rehabilitate 80 buses. the main purpose is provide reliable buses and extend lives of these buses in order for us to be able to face the procurement of the buses and reduce average age of buses and make them more reliable for service. >> and the dollar value is included in your budget? >> it is -- yes, ma'am. it is $19.1 million. >> okay. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and members of committee, the capital project budget is $20,690,000, that includes the proposed 19.1 million agreement, as well as a million and 600 thousand for related sfmta costs. the agreement expenditures, as you can see in the resolution, are limited to
1:18 pm
$12 million pending certification by controler of 4.1 million in state bond proceeds. we recommend you approve this resolution. >> thank you. if there are no questions from the committee i would like to open this for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on item 7? seeing none, closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and do that without objection. thank you. item 8, please. >> resolution authorizing san francisco department of public health to submit a one year application for calendar year 2013, to continue to receive funding for comprehensive h.i.v. prevention program grant from centers for disease control and prevention, requesting $9,523,313 in h.i.v. funding from san
1:19 pm
francisco january 1st 2013 through december 31st, 2013. >> thank you. we have tracy packer from -- >> i'm tracy from h.i.v. prevention. it says good morning but good afternoon. supervisors, thank you. so we are asking for approval for an accept and expend for funding from centers for disease control and prevention. this is the primary funding for h.i.v. prevention, though general fund is becoming more and more important, it is important to acknowledge our funds are decreasing from cdc and last year the mayor's office, with support from the board of supervisors, approved a back fill of funding that's decreasing. while we applied for $9 million, we will probably get about $8 million. little over $8 million for this coming year. we have now included cdc required san mateo and marin to be part of our
1:20 pm
division. we will get 7.5 million of funding into san francisco. a bit about it, cdc's priorities are for h.i.v. testing, prevention with positives, con don distribution and policy initiatives. we are focused on testing in community settings as well as medical settings. all of or work is focused on addressing h.i.v. health disparities. an additional new piece is that there's funding in this grant to develop an integrated data system that will bring our data on tb, stds and viral hepatitis together to better serve our communities. couple things. this grant covers some staff. about 3.2 million in staff travel, materials and supplies. the rest over $4 million
1:21 pm
goes out to our community-based organizations. >> thank you very much. i believe we do not have a budget analyst report so why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation. we will do that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, we are adjourned.
1:22 pm
1:23 pm
1:24 pm
1:25 pm
♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this
1:26 pm
voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice
1:27 pm
of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is
1:28 pm
new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that
1:29 pm
candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second,